Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Andrew McCalip demonstrates synthesis of LK99

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 363 posts

Re: Andrew McCalip demonstrates synthesis of LK99

#271

Post by yorwba »

TylerE wrote: post #181
yorwba wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nanjing University physics professor Wen Haihu said in an interview with The Paper that the news was extremely likely to be false and they only assigned a student to it because many groups internationally were working on replications https://www.thepaper.cn/newsDetail_forward_24024641 "A researcher from the Institute of Physics at the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) declined to comment on LK-99, telling the Post th…

Not go all conspiracy, but isn’t that also pretty much the playbook you’d run if you were trying to discredit it, to get as much of a jump on the rest of the world as possible? The Chinese government is not exactly known for playing fair .

That requires a government so competent they immediately notice the significance of a claimed breakthrough by a foreign lab and coordinate an information campaign where their leading scientists act all skeptical just like leading scientists in other countries, denying rumours that the Academy of Sciences is working on a replication etc., ... but completely fail to act on similar rumours sparked at the same time by screenshots of a HUST professor getting all excited about his university's replication work in a group chat.

Usually, when the Chinese government is confronted with an unexpected development they want to suppress, the opposite happens: official spokespeople clam up, nobody has a statement ready, related keywords get censored more or less effectively on social media, until an official narrative is revealed that doesn't withstand further scrutiny but survives anyway because such scrutiny is censored as well.

So no, it's pretty much not the playbook they'd run if they were trying to discredit it.

Re: Andrew McCalip demonstrates synthesis of LK99

#273

Post by dotnet00 »

MetaWhirledPeas wrote: post #267
dotnet00 wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the gatekeeping is relevant because almost every time in recent years that the general completely unvetted, often actively ignorant public has gotten an in on the scientific/R&D process, it has been a disaster for the field. NASA can't take risks and seriously innovate anymore because even intentional explosions will be passed off as failures, we all experienced the sheer madness of the covid years, similarly…

> Not having some amount of gatekeeping just lowers the bar too much and introduces so much more noise. I can see how this would be a very controversial subject. Discouraging scientific participation? That's a tough pill to swallow without a lot of justification.

It isn't discouraging participation, it's requiring that you meet some minimum level of proficiency to be considered credible. Kind of like how you need to have some experience in programming to have any credibility when talking about how a programming language should be designed.

Re: Andrew McCalip demonstrates synthesis of LK99

#274

Post by carabiner »

ThePhysicist wrote: post #212

Honestly I don't see anything that would prove superconductivity in this video. If LK-99 is a type-II superconductor you should observe flux pinning i.e. you would be able to move the flake with a tweezer and it would be stuck in place as the magnetic flux lines are pinned to defects in the material. I haven't seen any details on the supposed properties of the material like the coherence length, but from the original…

Damn. It's over.

Re: Andrew McCalip demonstrates synthesis of LK99

#275

Post by MetaWhirledPeas »

dotnet00 wrote: post #273
MetaWhirledPeas wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Not having some amount of gatekeeping just lowers the bar too much and introduces so much more noise. I can see how this would be a very controversial subject. Discouraging scientific participation? That's a tough pill to swallow without a lot of justification.

It isn't discouraging participation, it's requiring that you meet some minimum level of proficiency to be considered credible. Kind of like how you need to have some experience in programming to have any credibility when talking about how a programming language should be designed.

> it's requiring that you meet some minimum level of proficiency to be considered credible

That's not really the case though is it? Doubting someone's credibility would simply mean ignoring their results. But withholding information is something else entirely.

Re: Andrew McCalip demonstrates synthesis of LK99

#276

Post by zarzavat »

username332211 wrote: post #260
kijin wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's the same in Korea where the research originated. A bunch of professors belonging to a hastily formed academic committee are trying to monopolize the public debate, quibbling about errors in the arxiv paper and demanding that Lee & Kim turn over samples of LK-99 because the big-name professors are obviously too busy to make their own. It seems that their first priority is to avoid a repeat of the Hwang scandal th…

Any time the material exhibits a properties inconsistent with superconductors, the to-go explanation is that it's supposedly extremely difficult to manufacture. Not to mention, the original instructions include stuff like "The sealed tube containing the mixed powder was heated in a furnace at 925°C for 5-20 hours." which sounds a tad bit imprecise. Don't you think in those conditions it's at least a little bit reason…

They’ve said they will provide samples after peer review. Which seems fair doesn’t it? How can they complete their paper and peer review without the samples? And if the samples get damaged they will be regret ever handing them over. If you were in the same situation you’d make the same decision.

I and everybody else would love them to hand over the samples for external testing, but it’s their samples so they can do whatever they want with it, and the rest of the world just has to pound lanarkite while we wait.

Re: Andrew McCalip demonstrates synthesis of LK99

#277

Post by dotnet00 »

MetaWhirledPeas wrote: post #275
dotnet00 wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It isn't discouraging participation, it's requiring that you meet some minimum level of proficiency to be considered credible. Kind of like how you need to have some experience in programming to have any credibility when talking about how a programming language should be designed.

> it's requiring that you meet some minimum level of proficiency to be considered credible That's not really the case though is it? Doubting someone's credibility would simply mean ignoring their results. But withholding information is something else entirely.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, where did withholding information come into this?

Re: Andrew McCalip demonstrates synthesis of LK99

#278

Post by MetaWhirledPeas »

giantrobot wrote: post #268
MetaWhirledPeas wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. What I don't understand is the gatekeeping. Why would the actions of outsiders have any bearing on "real" research? Are they worried that grant money will get redirected toward shallower, more glamorous groups?

My personal opinion/reaction likely isn't going to affect anyone's grant status. I'm just a random asshole. But there are less random assholes whose opinion might count. If someone sounding authoritative, but is just a random asshole like me, shits on this work on social media it might affect a group's grant status if it taints the opinion of someone holding the purse strings. So I don't think asking about credential…

I'm not suggesting we give random people credibility: I'm suggesting that when we make potentially-enormous breakthroughs that maybe we shouldn't keep that information to ourselves for decades.

Edit: According to this it was just an unfortunate 19-year hiatus. (Yikes.) https://twitter.com/8teAPi/status/1684385895565365248

Re: Andrew McCalip demonstrates synthesis of LK99

#279

Post by svara »

codedokode wrote: post #240
svara wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Questionable methods get mass debated in public. By people who don't know what they're talking about. You're seriously underestimating the level of expertise that it takes to professionally assess most research. It wouldn't be unusual for there to be a small handful of people with that ability in the world.

> You're seriously underestimating the level of expertise that it takes to professionally assess most research. It wouldn't be unusual for there to be a small handful of people with that ability in the world. Does it mean that grant money are distributed by people who are unable to "assess most research"?

No, because funding agencies use external reviewers who are experts in the field of an application.

Re: Andrew McCalip demonstrates synthesis of LK99

#280

Post by dclowd9901 »

mschuster91 wrote: post #203
maipen wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? Simple, there's lots of mentally ill people on this planet. Anime profile pictures are usualy a redflag. These kind of people should only be ignored since they never want to cooperate.

> Anime profile pictures are usualy a redflag. These kind of people should only be ignored since they never want to cooperate. A lot of them are simply trans and tired of dealing with constant harassment campaigns directed towards their gender identity. Of course they're wary about cooperations with people they don't intimately trust.

You’re making quite a leap here assuming they’re trans, but it’s an inarguable stance to take anyway. If I say “they should reveal to increase the profile of trans folks everywhere”, you’ll say “why is it incumbent upon them to prove their value?” If I say “they should reveal to shut down harassers,” you’ll say that I must be a transphobe.

Sexual politics is tiring and pointless, honestly. With all the ad hominem bullshit and disingenuous positioning, no one is even trying to resolve it.

Post reply on HN